@strypey I may be convinced otherwise once it's implemented here and the lived experience can prove the concept is sustainable within our system that continually exploits people for profit, but I think a UBI is like a band-aid. It may soften the symptoms of dispossession and precarity produced by capitalism and settler colonial structures, but it doesn't address the underlying power relations that generate those symptoms in the first place.
Even if it provides short-term relief, it leaves intact the colonial logic that land is something to be governed through extractive institutions and market rule, rather than through indigenous sovereignty, and it keeps capitalism's core demand, that people's lives be made only legible as "workers" and their needs routed only through wage and consumption.
So the REAL decolonial objection isn't that UBI is "bad" in itself, it's that it treats redistribution as a substitute for undoing colonial dispossession. If the goal is justice, then relief without structural change, without returning land, sovereignty, and community power, risks becoming another way colonial-capitalism absorbs critique, AKA a band-aid to the wound, while preserving the system that caused it.
Obviously there's much more complexity and nuance to New Zealand's migrant history and I do recognise that other places are also victims of colonial projects which have led those people to move here in search of a better life, but I can appreciate the legitimacy of such an upheaval to their lives while also recognising the cost to existing communities here.
Also important to note in this global technology race, is that the roles being created to service these new economies are very much outnumbered by the quantity of roles disappearing from across all industries. We are constantly promised freedom and abundance as long as we adopt these tools and yet inequality is worse than its ever been, so what's the timeline then? 10 more years? 25? 50?
We should revolt NOW.